Search Challenge (November 9, 2011): How do people spend their time?

It might not look like much, but this is a compelling graphic: 

It's a chart of how people in the US spend their time during an average day. 


Can you figure out how people spend their time?  You can probably guess what the big orange and big blue segments are, but what makes up the other 30% of the day?  


This question came about from a simple discussion at work the other day.  I know that I spend about 2.5 hours each day just doing my email.  Was that normal?  Is it a high number?  A low number?  


So if you take the US as a whole (statistically speaking), can you figure out how normal people spend each day? 


The best solution here is to be able to create a chart something like this one (although I'll show a different graphic tomorrow).  You need to find data you believe--a source that's credible, or at least one that uses some kind of data-gathering mechanism that you believe.


Be sure to tell us how you found your data and why you believe it.   


Search on! 

Alexis Madrigal's research process

In his recent Google+ post, the Atlantic Monthly writer Alexis Madrigal noted down a recent research task that he did.  


I'm copying most of the text of his post here so I can comment on bits of it... 


He wanted to do some background research on "how people want to tow icebergs for fresh water supply."  (My quick characterization of what he wanted to find out.)  


What he did to research this topic was pretty interesting, and since he wrote it down we can take a look at his process.  

From his post: "... I knew that "iceberg towing" was a unique phrase that could be pumped through every search engine imaginable to find interesting information. And that's really what enabled me to write a comprehensiveish post about the phenomenon in a short amount of time. Here was my rough order of operations, although given tabbed browsing, many of these things were going on simultaneously..."  

Madrigal then goes on to list the things he checked.  


He's right to notice that a phrase like "iceberg towing" is so perfectly descriptive of what he wants (and wonderfully uncommon) that almost anything he finds is going to be just about on-target.  


My comments come after each of his steps.  

1. Google Books (first with only free books shown, then later with all previewable books shown)


This is actually a great first move, as Google Books has not just books, but also many popular magazines.  Popular Mechanics (1978, vol 149, no 1, pg 47) has a wonderful picture of a ship nearly being sunk by shards of ice falling from the iceberg.  That's one of the values added by popular magazines--images and "inside stories" that are often missed by more academic monographs and technical articles.  

2. Standard Google search, followed by searches just within .gov sites and then looking only for PDFs


Using searches like [ "iceberg towing" filetype:pdf ] and [ "iceberg towing" site:.gov ].  These limit the search results to PDFs (usually articles from academic sources) and to government sites (.gov).  Another useful trick might have been to try [ "iceberg towing" site:.edu ] 

3. The Chronicling America collection, late 1800s and early 1900s newspaper accounts as well as the other Library of Congress databases, though almost all of them came up empty. 


I have admit I'm not surprised by the lack of content here.  Still, it's a smart move to check these kinds of special collecitons, and it doesn't take long to check.  

4. YouTube


I think I would have checked on Google Video, as it's a superset of the YouTube results.  One search would do both sets of content.  But Alexis is following advice I give in all of my classes about being a good searcher:  Check other kinds of content beyond just web-search.  

5. Flickr Commons, then Flickr


This seems redundant as the images returned from both sets are the same.  On the other hand, you can quickly figure out that perry709 was the person who took those photos, and by doing the obvious searches, you can find out that he even has an iceberg tattoo and clearly works in marine research.  But we digress.  My point is that a little bit of chaining from a known source can lead to even more discoveries and confirmation about the credibility of a source.  (And I found a few photos that perry7009 hadn't put onto Flickr, but were under his Imgur account--images that hadn't appeared anyplace else.)    

6. Here, I pinged Twitter, which brought Project Habakkuk and Brewster's Millions to my attention. Twitter is great for testing what people first think of when they hear some phrase like "iceberg towing." It lets you play defense against common assumptions.


I completely agree.  Even though I work at Google, one of the great things I've seen in truly power searchers (what I call "ultra searchers") is that they always mine their social networks.  Twitter is a great, fast way to tap into a large community, including people you might not know directly, but who can point you to places you would have never found in any other way.    

7. Google Scholar, followed by searching in the footnotes of the papers found there, which led to the discovery that there were two major papers put out in 1973, one in the Journal of Glaciology by Weeks and Campbell (later published in modified form in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) and another by RAND researchers J.L. Hult and O.C. Ostrander. Both were gold mines of information.


Google Scholar is one of the great, but underused, repositories around.  For a research topic like this that skirts around in the academic literature, this is a great place to go.    


8. By now, many signs pointed to John Isaacs at Scripps Oceanographic Institute as the key figure in the midcentury, so I went to Scripps' archives and found a bunch of photos of the guy as well as a book about him, which was previewable in Google Books


Within a few clicks you'll arrive at the Scripps Archive, which is (apparently) not indexed by Google!  Discovering dark-web repositories (as is often the case with special-library archives that run their own search engines of their content) is often a way to find things that other, less motivated searchers, will never discover.  If you're looking for a new story or a scoop, this is a great technique for finding good stuff.     


The other thing he could have done was to use the UCSD "Ask a Librarian" service.  Many libraries run a special email (or live chat) answer service.  I think I might have checked out the "Ask a Librarian" about what resources Scripps has on "iceberg towing" -- you never know what's not in any online archive and just sitting in an archive box on the librarian's desk.  

9. Meanwhile, the RAND report led me to a slough of other sources and filled in the deep history of iceberg towing from South America.  


Makes sense to me too. 

10. I decided to follow up on an early hit from TIME Magazine's online archives about a conference sponsored by Prince Faisal of Saudi Arabia at Iowa State University (!) about iceberg towing. Turns out, Iowa State maintains a small archival collection about the conferences, which began in 1979 and ran for a few years.


This is a fantastic find.  (Check out the site: http://www.lib.iastate.edu/arch/rgrp/0-4-4.html)  I agree with Alexis, this was pretty much unexpected, so it's another great resource to draw on.  

11. That was pretty much it. I did some more extensive searching around "iceberg towing + Labrador Sea" and that yielded a bunch of interesting information about the business and science of towing bergs for the oil industry. Specifically, a 2003 Smithsonian mag profile surfaced and an excellent document from Grand Banks Iceberg Management from 2007, which pretty much tells you anything you need to know about how to actually get the practice done.

Not to be picky, but a search like [ "iceberg towing + Labrador Sea" ] won't actually find you much.  (The + was ignored, and so the query is really just [ "iceberg towing Labrador Sea" ] -- which is okay, it finds a few results.  


But it makes me think that a REALLY interesting search might be to use this strategy more generally.  Example:  use the "fill in the blank" (aka "wildcard") mechanism.  Like this: 


[ "iceberg towing" "* sea" ]  -- which finds a video I hadn't seen before 


or... 


[ "iceberg towing"  "* ocean" ] -- which finds even more results


The strategy there is to try and find new kinds of specific results (e.g., "Arctic Ocean") rather than just the Labrador Sea.  

All in all, I was pretty impressed--Alexis showed a real mastery of the art of search.  Kudos to him for documenting a longish, deep and determined search strategy and sharing it with everyone on the web. 


Search on, Alexis! 

Where's the Advanced Search button? (It's where the Language Tools went)

As you probably have noticed, the Google UI is going through some changes as we try to add increasing amounts of capability without making the whole thing bog down with a million additional widgety items on the search page.  


It's a design challenge, that's for sure.  What we're trying to do is to improve the searchability of the web--usually that means adding new features for search (such as time-based restrictions) or location-based search (which you can do by using the "Change Location" widget in the left-hand panel).


Recently, the "Advanced Search" button moved from where-it-always-was (right by the search box) to under the gear menu in the upper-right corner of the search page.  

When you click on the gear, it will show a pull-down menu that looks like this (although with your name and your picture instead of mine).  

Note that this is ALSO where the Language tools ended up.  That's where you can Search in another language,  Translate text, Translate web pages, Change your interface language.   


I've read a lot of people who aren't able to find the Advanced Search button (and now you know!), and a few others who are complaining because it's now too complicated. 


Yes, the location moved, and you have to do one additional click to get to the page.  But really, this isn't much of a barrier.  It's different than what you grew up with, so it seems a little odd.  But really, it's not much of a hassle, unless it changed while you weren't looking. 


What you should know about web applications:   Because web apps (like Google search) run in a browser, it's really easy for the development team to change them while you're not looking.  Next time you re-load the page, BAM!, a new UI can be there.  


Mostly that's for the better: they can fix problems before you even notice them and they can evolve an application in ways that just weren't possible in the days when apps came on CDs and suffered a massive change every 18 months or so.  For instance, when Search by Image came online, it was with a tiny UI change (the camera icon now appears in the Image Search box)--but it lets you do something very, very powerful.  


The bottom line for us users is that change is now the new norm.  Stuff will change in all web-apps (except for those that have stopped all development) on an ongoing basis. 


One of the skills of a literate user of the web is the ability to understand how things change and be able to both carry their previous skills forward into the new version, and to understand what new possibilities there are now.  


We searchers need to lead the charge in teaching everyone how the world changes.  


Search (and teach) on! 

Answer: How much did you understand when you first read Moby Dick?

The question was about the whaling ship in Moby Dick:  


     Captain Ahab's ship had a very strange design
     that made the upper deck seem like a whale's mouth. 
     What was it that made this striking appearance?  

This question came up because I was talking with a friend about the story of Moby Dick, and the conversation took a turn towards the symbols in the book.  We remembered there was something odd about the ship's design, but couldn't remember what.  


Try to find the answer to THAT original question  ("There's something odd about the Pequod, what is it?").  That is, so to speak, a tougher kettle of fish to answer.  But I couldn't ask you to solve that problem because our question was inarticulately wrapped up in what we thought of as odd.  "Odd" in something about the ship.  It's a case of "I'll know it when I see it..."  


So when I wrote this challenge question, I included the (big) hint of "upper deck" and "like a whale's mouth" in my description.  I didn't have that when I started.  YOU were lucky.  


But here's what I did.  


I realized quickly that searching for things like [ odd ship design ] and [ unusual design Pequod ] wasn't going to work.  I was hoping that someone might have written a senior thesis on the topic and those phrases would have hit one of those.  But no dice.  


A search was going to have to involve the actual text of the book.  I then realized that I could just download the entire text of Moby Dick and do a manual search through the text of the document, looking for places where the author wrote about the ship. 


Where can you get the full text of Moby Dick?  Don't bother looking in Google Books, they don't let you download the full text.  You've got to go to a resource like Project Gutenberg which holds full texts of many out-of-copyright books, including many classics like Moby Dick.  A quick search for [ Project Gutenberg ] (or [ download text Moby Dick ] ) and I had a copy on my hard drive.  At 1.3Mb, it's a small download.   


I got the HTML version of the book so I could do my searching in Chrome.  


A little unsure where to begin, I started looking (using the infamous Control-F method) for places in the text where Melville was describing the ship.  


Now the great thing about Control-F in Chrome is that the scroll bar shows you all of the hits throughout the entire document as little tick marks in the scrollbar.  Since in this case the document is all of Moby Dick, this shows the occurrence of my first find (for the word "ship") and the locations of all other instances of the word  throughout the entire novel.   If you look closely at the find box (top) you'll see there are 717 instances of "ship."  A few too many to check out.  

  
It's pretty clear that this word wasn't going to work--there are 717 hits for the word "deck" in the novel.  The question is what would work to find me this "odd ship design" passage?  


Luckily, it's pretty quick to test words that are probably involved in a passage about the design of the ship.  I tried words like "deck" and "design" without much luck.  (Too many hits.)  But then I tried the word "features" (in the sense of "design features")...  To be honest, I didn't really hold out much hope for this, but it worked!  There are only 11 occurrences of "feature" in the entire document, and the first instance of the word was in the following paragraph (Chapter 16, "The Ship"):   (highlighting mine)

You may have seen many a quaint craft in your day, for aught I know;—square-toed luggers; mountainous Japanese junks; butter-box galliots, and what not; but take my word for it, you never saw such a rare old craft as this same rare old Pequod. She was a ship of the old school, rather small if anything; with an old-fashioned claw-footed look about her. Long seasoned and weather-stained in the typhoons and calms of all four oceans, her old hull's complexion was darkened like a French grenadier's, who has alike fought in Egypt and Siberia. Her venerable bows looked bearded. Her masts—cut somewhere on the coast of Japan, where her original ones were lost overboard in a gale—her masts stood stiffly up like the spines of the three old kings of Cologne. Her ancient decks were worn and wrinkled, like the pilgrim-worshipped flag-stone in Canterbury Cathedral where Becket bled. But to all these her old antiquities, were added new and marvellous features, pertaining to the wild business that for more than half a century she had followed. Old Captain Peleg, many years her chief-mate, before he commanded another vessel of his own, and now a retired seaman, and one of the principal owners of the Pequod,—this old Peleg, during the term of his chief-mateship, had built upon her original grotesqueness, and inlaid it, all over, with a quaintness both of material and device, unmatched by anything except it be Thorkill-Hake's carved buckler or bedstead. She was apparelled like any barbaric Ethiopian emperor, his neck heavy with pendants of polished ivory. She was a thing of trophies. A cannibal of a craft, tricking herself forth in the chased bones of her enemies. All round, her unpanelled, open bulwarks were garnished like one continuous jaw, with the long sharp teeth of the sperm whale, inserted there for pins, to fasten her old hempen thews and tendons to. Those thews ran not through base blocks of land wood, but deftly travelled over sheaves of sea-ivory. Scorning a turnstile wheel at her reverend helm, she sported there a tiller; and that tiller was in one mass, curiously carved from the long narrow lower jaw of her hereditary foe. The helmsman who steered by that tiller in a tempest, felt like the Tartar, when he holds back his fiery steed by clutching its jaw. A noble craft, but somehow a most melancholy! All noble things are touched with that.

There's the answer:  the Pequod was decorated with the teeth of sperm whales all around the top of bulwark on the topdeck.  (And the tiller was crafted from a single piece of whale jawbone...)

So.. what's the take-away message from a SearchResearch perspective?

First, that sometimes you really have to dig into the material at hand.  Since I really didn't know quite what the correct section was, I really didn't have anything much to go on.  So I started a fishing expedition with terms that I thought would be likely to be involved.

Key to this iterative search, though, was using a fast finding tool that would both find the search term (whatever word I was looking for) AND give me an overview of the entire document with all of the hits.  If I'd had to sequentially check all of the 717 hits for the word "ship" one-at-a-time, I would have given up longer before finding the answer.

You have to have sharp tools to investigate deeply.

Search on!

Wednesday Search Challenge (Nov 2, 2011): How much did you understand when you first read Moby Dick?

If you're like me, you probably read Moby Dick at some point in your life.  Maybe in high school, maybe for general reading later on in life.  Regardless of when you read it, you probably have a pretty good mental image of the story, right?  Captain Ahab and the search for the great white whale... maybe something about the inherent qualities of mankind, some ideas about man vs. nature, madness and a bunch of characters, the likes of which would never enter a Starbucks, but would prefer their grog on the open sea.  


Whenever it was that you read Moby Dick, how much of it did you understand?  Let's test your level of understanding:  You know what a right-whale is, you probably remember the difference between a top-sail and a stun-sail, and you remember the characters of Starbuck, Queequeg and Ishmael, right? 

Whale etching from Wikipedia

Bu what about the ship itself?  Most of the book takes place aboard ship, and in some ways it's as memorable a character as the people.  


So let's see if you can answer this question:  


     Captain Ahab's ship had a very strange design
     that made the upper deck seem like a whale's mouth. 
     What was it that made this striking appearance?  




Tomorrow I'll talk about how I figured this out, and how you might do the same. 




By the way... If you're enjoying these weekly search challenges, you might ALSO enjoy AGoogleADay.com where I run a daily version of these search problems.  



Search on! 

The + operator is gone... So what?

Just the other day, Google turned off the + operator.  There was a bit of a kerfuffle about it in a few blogs, and Danny Sullivan got bent out of shape about it, but relatively few people noticed that the behavior of the double-quote operator also changed at the same time. 

Here's the deal:  LOTS of people believed incorrectly that the + operator was the opposite of the - operator.  You know what – does, it excludes the term from the search results.  That is, if you do a search like [apples –macintosh] the results will not contain the term macintosh in the results.  That makes sense.  (Some places use the NOT operator for this.  Same behavior.)  

Unfortunately, many people believed that a search like [apples +macintosh] would require the term to be in the search results.  That's NOT what it did.  While the + term would usually be in the results, it was only there because you'd put it into the query!  

So what did the + do?   Answer:  It turned off synonymization and spell-correction.  That is, with a query like [apples +macintosh] you wouldn't get that term macintosh being synonymized for a term like gala, gravenstein or jonathan.  (Those are other apple varieties, if you're wondering.)  

NOW... we no longer have the + operator.  So what can you do if you want the same effect?  

Answer:   Use double-quotes for single terms.  You'd write that query now as [apples "macintosh"], and it'll give you the same effect as what the plus used to do.  

Some people complain that it's an extra character to type.  Geez.  Give me a break--you're going to complain about 1 extra character?  

The double-quote mechanism is actually pretty interesting.  For instance, did you know you can do the following kinds of a query? 

     [ intitle:"abc" ]  finds “ABC” in title of a web document, no synonyms allowed

     [ intitle:a intitle:b intitle:c ] finds the single letters A, B, C in any order in title 

And you can use double/double-quotes to look for non-synonymized terms in a particular sequence.  A la, 

     [ " "abc" "cnn" "cbs" " ] finds those 3 terms in that sequence without synonyms

and you can extend that to include

     [" intitle:"a" intitle:"b" intitle:"c" "]   finds the single letters A, B, C in title of page,
                                                                     in that sequence

    

Search for these terms in ANY order in the title of a web page: 

Search for these terms in THIS given order on the web page  (using double-double quotes):

Contrast with this result, where the 3 terms can appear in any sequence... 

Does this help you understand the new power of double-quotes?  Yes, the + operator is gone, but what we now have makes a bit more sense.  

Answer: Where did that crazy uniform come from?

--> Quick answer:  This is the Civil War uniform of the Zouaves, a rather colorful uniform dress adopted by some regiments as a particularly fashionable way to go to war.  They were heavily influenced by African battle dress, especially from the Zouaoua tribe in Algeria 

Image from LOC's collection of articles about the American Civil War 

(Internet Archive)

What was fun for me was to see how people solved the search challenge.  A few folks recognized that dragging-and-dropping the image in the manner shown in this YouTube demo video.  (If you haven't seen this trick before, it's a remarkable thing to know.  You'll be able to find things that were just impossible to do before.)  

A couple others used Google Goggles, which does basically the same trick, although through your mobile phone camera, rather than dragging images around on the desktop.  

But other people used more traditional search methods.  Dave, the first to reply, wrote:

 "...quick Google of "Civil War Uniform Turban" turned up that this uniform style was called "Zouave" after North African troups serving in the French army in the 1830s and until WWI. Wikipedia says these were originally recruited from the vowel-rich Zouaoua, a tribe of Berbers...."  

Interestingly, Fred also did this same strategy, but wasn't able to pick out the link that Dave found.  That's actually fairly common:  two people follow the same strategy, but end up with different outcomes.  Usually it's because one person knows just a bit more about the area, and follows a different link from the SERP to a landing page.  I know Fred is a strong searcher, so I think this points out that your-mileage-may-vary even when following the same strategy.  Search knowledge is powerful, but knowing about a domain is just as important!  


In my case, my strategy was to search for [Civil War uniform fez] (the first image I saw of these soldiers had them wearing fezzes, although as we see, turbans were also acceptable alternates).   This led me quickly to the Wikipedia article on Zouaves, which took me to learn more about Civil War dress styles and the utter craziness of these soldiers who had a reputation for hard fighting and being tougher than the average warrior (who were already pretty tough).  


The purpose of this blog is really to show you techniques for being a better searcher, and we see two maxims at work here.  


first:  If you're searching for an image, an Image search is often best.  Dragging and dropping the image into the Google Image box is a great first thing to try.  (Just so you'll know, I tried to make it not work by cropping the original images--obviously that wasn't enough.) 


second: When you do your searches, try to use the simplest possible language to describe what you're searching for.  My search,  [Civil War uniform fez] , was pretty short and to the point.  Once you start adding that 5th and 6th word, you might be accidentally removing the target of your search with those extra words.  Think of adding an additional search term as a "focusing" mechanism... if you focus in too tightly, what you're looking for might be just outside the range of your search.  So start broadly, then tighten in as you learn more. 

Search on! 

Wednesday Search Challenge (October 26, 2011): Where did that crazy uniform come from?

I just came back from a short trip to Washington DC where I wandered on the Mall between all of the monuments and museums, taking in the whole sweep of American history and puzzling over the parts that I really don't recognize or know any of the back-story.  


One of the more puzzling bits was looking at photographs from the Civil War.  I'd seen the pictures of Matthew Brady and knew most of the generals, battlegrounds, armaments and forts.  But what really surprised me were some of the crazy uniforms the soldiers were wearing.  

Really?  These guys were fighting in the American Civil War?  But I assure you, they are, and did.  


I have to admit--these images didn't line up with my expectations of Civil War uniforms at all!  What's going on here?


Naturally, I looked it up.. and found that these unusual Civil War uniforms were inspired by a fashion craze at the time that came from another part of the world.  


The search challenge for today is pretty simple and comes in two parts: 


1.  What is the name of this style of uniform dress?  


2.  Where did this style of uniform originate?


And... for extra credit, 


Extra credit:  The original wearers of this uniform style were recruited from what group?   


Answer tomorrow.  (A little hint:  Searchers in Louisiana might find this problem fairly easy.)  


Search on! 

Answer: Who owns that piece of land?

Okay, I admit it.  I kind of set you up for this one.  But there's a reason... and that is that preconceptions of what you're searching for can ALSO damage your ability to search.  Let me explain.  


We've actually discussed land ownership before.  (See previous episode on determining how much acreage there is in a given land parcel.)  


Today we'll discuss a slightly different solution and I'll point out the setup.  


Using Maps.Google.com you can right click at the given location on the map.  That will popup a context menu with an option for "What's here?"  

 It will show up a link to the nearest address--in this case, 7380 Morton Ave.  I should have been tipped off at this point that maybe it wasn't a Cargill-owned site.  I recognized the name "Morton" as a big salt company.  But I didn't really notice or pay attention.  So I kept looking for the Cargill connection.  

If you copy that address into regular Google, you'll see a Map result (which we already have) and a few links about "Morton Salt."  


Huh.  I thought I was looking for Cargill.  All I ever read in the local press about the baylands has the word "Cargill" in it.  Maybe Cargill bought Morton Salt?  

This led to a flurry of clicks and tracking down information about Morton Salt.  Does Cargill own it?  Answer:  No, it's actually owned by K+S Aktiengesellschaft, a German company that bought Morton in October of 2009 for $1.5B and in the process became the world's biggest producer of salt. Okay, who owns K+S?  Answer: Nobody.  


So.. who owns that parcel of land?  


A quick check of the street location in Google Streetview shows an obvious first clue:  Morton Salt! 

The next link the SERP is to Wikimapia, a site that shows ownership and is great for seeing city and neighborhood boundaries.  (It's a great resource for this kind of thing... highly recommended.)   You can also use PropertyShark.com (login required) to get even more information about parcels like this.  They both also confirm that this is owned by Morton.  


To verify all this, I went to the real authority: the Alameda County Assessor's website and looked up information about the parcel (which is labeled: 537-751-6-4)  As is usual, the government website is tough to use.  (Do anything slightly wrong, and it  gives you nothing.)  But after a bit of trial and error, I found the parcel is in fact owned by Morton Salt, and is worth ~$20M.  


 Moral of the story:  I went looking for Cargill and found Morton.  This kind of thing happens fairly often--BEWARE of the made-up mind--it's often hard to let go of a preconception and see what you're actually looking for.  While, as Pasteur said, chance favors the prepared mind, a correctly prepared mind is able to look around and also see alternatives.  An effective searcher needs to be both prepared and willing to give up on preconceptions.  


Search on!  

Wednesday Search Challenge (October 19, 2011): Who owns that piece of land?

The salt flats of south San Francisco bay are hard to believe when you first see them.  They're vast geometric shapes that are often bizarre colors--red, maroon, yellow, green--depending on the time of year as you fly overhead.  They change color depending on what kind of halophlic creature is currently living in the water.  As the sun evaporates the bay water, the salinity goes up, and a variety of animals take over at different degrees of saltiness.  

They're also very controversial as they're the remnant of the marshlands and estuaries that once supported millions of migrating birds (and local, year-round fauna).  But they were diked a long time ago, and the question these days is how to best use the marshlands.  


A key player in these controversies over land-use policy is the giant chemical manufacturer Cargill.  They've been in the bay for a long time, and own many of the salt evaporation ponds around the bay.  


The other day as I flew into SFO, I passed over the south bay, and looking down from my window, I couldn't help but notice that one salt manufacturing facility looked slightly different than the others.  I later found its GPS coordinates, 37.518372, -122.032700‎  (aka: +37° 31' 6.14", -122° 1' 57.72" ) and tried to look up which branch of Cargill actually owned that site.  


Question for today:  Can you figure out which branch of Cargill owns that location?  

 

Search on!